Replies

Not if the constraint that each intermediate be a functioning life form/program is to be satisfied.

Living organisms are extremely robust. The analogy to software breaks down even for systems where no evolution is demanded. A single bitflip can stop a software program from functioning properly. (Think of cosmic rays and spacecraft.) A genome, on the other hand, can withstand a lot of changes without a change in function. An accumulation of such changes, when accompanied by a single change high up in the hierarchy of the genetic network will result in a massive change at the expression level. A smooth accumulation of functional changes may happen for one feature, but not for another. Gene sets which code for limbs, eyes, or limbs, for example, can be controlled as modules and the functioning intermediates need never exist. Plus, extensive genetic networks ensure that small changes in one area are diffused over the entire organism.

"Living organisms are extremely robust. The analogy to software breaks down even for systems where no evolution is demanded." - Nebullis

Why would you claim that?

Just because living organisms have better DNA programming than Man's modern software in no way invalidates a comparison between the two. Yes, DNA code is more robust, but human programming is slowly becoming more fault-tolerant, too.

But if there is no functional difference, there is nothing on which natural selection can get a purchase. Then, the odds that a number of changes N come together are essentially P1*P2*P3...PN, which is going to be a very small number. This is as useless an argument as the introns argument a few posts back. To repeat, evolutionary theory DEPENDS on natural selection to winnow down the odds. That is, evolutuonary theory assumes that small difference 1 makes a functional difference. The odds that any particular individual exhibits difference 1 may be small, so the theory goes, but in a large population the odds are better. Because difference 1 results in a fitter individual, there come to be many individuals with difference 1, of which one has difference 2, which in turn results in a fitter individual, and so on. If the difference MAKES NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE, natural selection CANNOT RESULT IN THE PROLIFERATION OF THAT DIFFERENCE. You evolution guys don't understand your own theory.